Comments on Romney's FoundersTypePad2007-12-10T21:26:03ZUChicagoLawhttp://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/tag:typepad.com,2003:http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/12/romneys-founder/comments/atom.xml/Ted commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef0105362b3cce970c2008-11-29T19:39:34Z2008-11-29T22:18:45ZTedOn Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government...<p>On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary). </p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU</a><br />
</p>Tad commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fe32d1d88332008-01-17T13:51:56Z2008-01-17T13:51:57ZTadMr. Stone, I noted your birth date. I noted when you graduated from college. I recalled that I left college...<p>Mr. Stone,</p>
<p>I noted your birth date. I noted when you graduated from college. I recalled that I left college voluntarily to go to the late RVN (and shame on the Congress for what they did) as my country was at war. Some things are very complex, some things are pig simple. You, Sir, may be many things, but you were not a warrior in your youth.</p>
<p>I&#39;ve no idea if this is true in your case, but very many Liberals (aka [now] Progressives [truth in advertizing..not] protect their egos by denying that they made a mistake. </p>
<p>Sir, You will - if you seriously look around - finally see that socialism, Liberalism, and PC arguments (not to mention all the awful legislation and regulation) have stolen much of what was good in our country. Bad things, most assuredly, needed to be fixed. They were not. They were certainly changed, but not fixed.</p>
<p>I lament what has occured in my country. I wonder why Liberals cannot see it. Blinded by some rage? </p>
<p>I remain,</p>
<p>Semper Fidelis,</p>
<p>LtCol William Curtis USMC (Ret)</p>Kimball Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54ff0271e88342008-01-13T00:05:47Z2008-01-13T00:05:47ZKimball CorsonMe thinks we are going in circles, LAK, with the ether breathers. They believe god exists, he said what he...<p>Me thinks we are going in circles, LAK, with the ether breathers. They believe god exists, he said what he did and that is that. Compartmental door closed.</p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd9d8e488342008-01-09T15:51:51Z2008-01-25T02:43:05ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/LAK attacking my intelligence and education ? At the risk of playing on the defensive I'll bite, cause at least...<p>LAK attacking my intelligence and education ? At the risk of playing on the defensive I&#39;ll bite, cause at least you argue at a high school level. Something I am obviously capable of handling. I don&#39;t feign intelligence sir, my vocabulary is just large enough that I can engage in dialogue without overusing tired phrases. I&#39;m sorry you think the word &quot;thusly&quot; is an example of attempting to look intelligent, I just thought it was a word that fit the flow of my ramblings. take any definition of any word you want, its your life, and you can be as wrong as you want to. I am going to admit though that my only degree is in radio broadcasting and as such is far from prestigious, but I have to admit to a certain distain towards pretentious university types who think they know a lot without having lived in the real world. Practical experience is the hallmark of wisdom, intelligence alone is nothing without the ability to apply it aptly. </p>
<p>Now as to GW being a conservative, he claims the label, I must admit. Though his actions and policies don&#39;t exemplify conservative ideology. Friedrick Hayek would turn over in his grave over GW&#39;s wolf in conservative&#39;s clothing. the greatest economist of the 20th century who helped steer your country through decades was a conservative, and it wasn&#39;t conservatives who fought against slavery and segregation it was democrats (though certainly not liberals either). thanks for the personal attacks LAK, I&#39;d trade them with you, but I have more class than that.</p>
<p>Kimball the so called conservatives vying for control of the repulican party are far from the type of conservative I would want to see running your country. I would prefer Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, or maybe even Herman Cain as a republican runner with actual conservative values that would help move your country along. The current field is a guarantee that the republicans will not win this year. As such I hope the dem who wins can do a good job, but the current field doesn&#39;t give me any high hopes. you are going to need some luck, that much is certain. </p>Kimball Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fc5cb9e88332008-01-08T23:17:44Z2008-01-08T23:17:44ZKimball Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewanderer"That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting...<p>&quot;That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy.&quot; Not like FDR&#39;s, does Zion mean?</p>
<p>Perhaps we should all start praying to the ethers: </p>
<p>Martin Feldstein, a top economist at Harvard and President of the National Bureau of Economic Research, says the odds now favor a US recession. It can only be avoided, he argues, by quick and aggressive fiscal and monetary policy, but that is not likely to happen with the Fed and this Government (read Bush, who has just conceded that the economy does have some problems along with its great strengths). </p>
<p>And Zion wants a conservative for our next president, i.e., someone who is slow to embrace change. Good luck to us all; we are going to need it.</p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fc57a9888332008-01-08T19:17:48Z2008-01-08T19:17:48ZLAKP.S. I'll take the U of C Theology dept.'s definition and use of "faith" over some barley educated Canadian's who...<p>P.S.</p>
<p>I&#39;ll take the U of C Theology dept.&#39;s definition and use of &quot;faith&quot; over some barley educated Canadian&#39;s who believes the Bible to be true any day. </p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd8a40088342008-01-08T19:15:22Z2008-01-08T19:15:22ZLAK"Thusly?" Your attempts at feigning above average intelligence don't work very well. Remember you're the guy who believes God impregnates...<p>&quot;Thusly?&quot; </p>
<p>Your attempts at feigning above average intelligence don&#39;t work very well. Remember you&#39;re the guy who believes God impregnates human virgins, and you&#39;re trolling on the University of Chicago law blog.</p>
<p>&quot;That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy.&quot;</p>
<p>What, like George Bush?</p>
<p>With all due respect, I&#39;d be surprised if you went to college at this point. Did you?</p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fc5428b88332008-01-08T16:21:02Z2008-01-25T02:43:42ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/LAK you just graduated to the real world with the most cogent contribution to this thread thusly. Congrats. I'm a...<p>LAK you just graduated to the real world with the most cogent contribution to this thread thusly. Congrats. I&#39;m a Canucklehead so I had to compliment you before I disagreed with you. but the term &quot;faithfull&quot; has very little to do with science or reason. It s a word in the english language of which there are many derivitives and the cultural context of how we use it is no lessened by your cry. You may disagree but no one has control over language it evolves along with its speakers over generations. If the West Indians make half as much inroads in the next 2 decades as we did in your popular culture in the last 2 decades expect the definition of faithfull and I noted to become even more widely accepted. As I understand your evangelicals already have (but not before us mind you). I know you are proud of your country and there are many great things Americans have accomplished in the last century, but your country is neither secular nor religious. your government is secular, your communities are whatever they want to be, as such labels like religious or secular will never cover enough people to be accurate. America is the great Melting Pot. It houses many peoples of differing positions and frames of mind. You are not quite as successful as the West Indies in assimilating foreign individuals but you will learn. Glad to see you using your god given mind.</p>
<p>Kimball, I have been paying attention and it does look like Obama is doing well so far. Not well enough to say he is a lock, but enough to say he has the momentum. Obama is a better pick for the Dems, cause the Repub&#39;s will use kid gloves on him just to avoid being accused of racism. That said, I really wish he was a conservative. I would prefer Americas first black president to have a lasting positive legacy. If you promise too much, people will inevitably be let down. I hope he has better ideas for governing in practise than he espouses on the trail. As for Huckabee now there is someone we can agree on, I have no idea why he is even given the time of day. He plainly panders to the religious, without substance behind it. He has done some truly stupid things while in a position of control. He is just not presidential material. In the last few months nearly every republican candidate has been a disappointment. McCain I like, and FD Thompson&#39;s libertarian conservatism is attractive but other than that zilch. </p>Kimball Corsonk commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd7d15488342008-01-08T03:26:18Z2008-01-08T03:26:18ZKimball Corsonkhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererSpeaking of being guided by the ethers, when is Geof going to give us a post regarding Huckabee? Anything will...<p>Speaking of being guided by the ethers, when is Geof going to give us a post regarding Huckabee? Anything will do. Just slip a soapbox under us.</p>Kimball Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fc4605688332008-01-07T22:56:12Z2008-01-07T22:56:12ZKimball Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererSpeaking of the next president, a few days ago, after the Iowa primary, Obama, publicly, and Bill Clinton, privately, said...<p>Speaking of the next president, a few days ago, after the Iowa primary, Obama, publicly, and Bill Clinton, privately, said that if Hillary or Obama wins both Iowa and New Hamshire, that winner will get the nomination. Hillary is now falling apart in New Hamshire, the press reports and she is quite tearful about it. Current polls in the State show her double digets behind. We are likely to have Obama as our next president. That should be interesting.</p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd73b1288342008-01-07T19:32:47Z2008-01-07T19:32:47ZLAKHonestly, to talk about reason, science and the enlightenment as if it was a matter of culture and alone is...<p>Honestly, to talk about reason, science and the enlightenment as if it was a matter of culture and alone is absurd. It&#39;s not just the Western world for whom electricty flows. And it wan&#39;t through ignorant and patently false and anti-intellectual beliefs that brought you the material progress you so take for granted.</p>
<p>To talk of secularism or rejecting of beliefs that run counter to accepted scientific truth as some kind of fucntion of a particular culture is downright frightening. Believe it or not, there are absolute truths in the world that transcend culture or performance or any of it. And those truths, truths that brought you the computer you write at, the car you drive and the electricity you use, came from our secular country, the greatest country ever.</p>
<p>I&#39;ve been all around this world. I&#39;ve met people of all walks of life. It is no mistake religion goes hand in hand with poverty and poor education. I&#39;ve seen it. I can love someone and respect their humanity and at the same time outright reject their religious beliefs. </p>
<p>I guess religion and wishy washy cultural relativism do serve a purpose for each other.</p>
<p>Save me Jebus. No no. Save me Martha Nussbaum. </p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd7319f88342008-01-07T19:08:02Z2008-01-25T02:43:16ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/Again Kimball comes in making sense. I find it hard to argue with someone who uses logic. I admit my...<p>Again Kimball comes in making sense. I find it hard to argue with someone who uses logic. I admit my usage of the term faithful falls out of congruence with academic norms, but it is accurate in the sense of the self detemination of the people who elect to use it as I described it. that my &quot;cultist friends&quot; (code word for family) use that terminology along with many other west indians does make it authoritative in the sense that this group identifies iteself that way. to us, if one has no faith in scriptures, the central point of belief, then one cannot be faithful. I have to admit that by this criteria I often don&#39;t measure up, but I&#39;m not here to self define but to acknowledge the others before me and their position in this. LAK, you made me laugh when you said you needed to speak with your friends who are &quot;faithful&quot; but reject scriptures. this is a funny thing to say to someone whose cultural background has clear definitions as to what this may or may not be, while what you said is considered a contradictory statement. I don&#39;t know much about the US, but I know a lot about Canada and the West Indies. Your inability, LAK, to see outside of your own cultural prejudices is a scary thing, especially for a &quot;thinker&quot;. My quote of Einstein back there was meant to be a dig at your because of this. You lack the sophistication of most people on here in this thread. <br />
arminius, I have to agree. the field of candidates in the states leaves me very worried. what passes for a conservative in the Republican party is laughable at best. Things are going to get worse before they get better. But please don&#39;t liken Obama to Carter, Carter was the last president who had been ok with the racial purity of neighbourhoods. Don&#39;t get me started on your country&#39;s worst president of the 20th century.</p>
<p>Kimball, I agree with you so far as to the current situation in many countries around the globe. I think the issue is much larger than Bush, but he does deserve blame. My largest concern is that despite who inherits the presidency (your media loves Clinton) none are capable of handling it without breaking a few eggs along the way. I think your next president is going to take GW&#39;s lead (it will be a dem for sure) and screw things up for generations to come. Whoever takes overwill put on a song and dance for the first few months to a year until everyone realizes its the same old story. then and only then will the viability of a third party seem mainstream in thought. after repubs and dems both screw it up who do you have to look to ?</p>Kim Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd6e0c488342008-01-07T15:32:34Z2008-01-07T15:32:35ZKim Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererFrom my travels (which I do full time), I discern a growing world tendency, evident in many countries including our...<p>From my travels (which I do full time), I discern a growing world tendency, evident in many countries including our own, toward insipient ungovernability. Chaos hovers at the edge. Many are discontent. Income mal distributions weigh in. The press becomes ever more selective about what it covers and pressures on it grow. Consumption by the wealthy becomes more conspicuous. Social programs slide or become ever more buried in red tape and politics. The environment groans. These are not a good times to hold your breath for world peace. Bush has badly set up back I fear and we will pay for it, one way or the other.</p>arminius commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fc30b1a88332008-01-07T02:36:29Z2008-01-07T02:36:30Zarminiustime to switch directions : hillary is as cuddly as a cobra...obama is almost inspirational but like jimmy carter is...<p>time to switch directions : hillary is as cuddly as a cobra...obama is almost inspirational but like jimmy carter is too good of an individual for corrupt Washington...romney doesn&#39;t believe in dinosaurs or even global warming...giuliani can&#39;t manage his marriage much less a nation...and mccain has made enemies with lobbyists and big oil who really run the country...the only way to make real money and take power is to lie,cheat,steal or push people around and all the candidates do it...we live in a modern Rome...and modern barbarians are ready to sack Rome...choose wisely the next president...our lives may very well depend on it !</p>Kimball Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd430b788342008-01-05T17:48:33Z2008-01-05T17:48:33ZKimball Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererI take issue with both Zion and LAK. Conventionally understood, faith is a firm belief in something for which there...<p>I take issue with both Zion and LAK. Conventionally understood, faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no [present means of] proof. Zion contends <br />
&quot;[f]aithful, means having faith in something. Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith?&quot; LAK argues that faith does not have to have a religious or authoritative basis, e.g., faith in the human condition, love, etc. LAK is I think correct that faith need not be religiously motivated or based or grounded in the supernatural or other authority. However, I argue, once we move away from the supernatural read religious or deistic, we step into areas that impinge on those subject to rational analysis and the social sciences which then slides them away from faith per se as defined and into areas potientially proveable or consistently demonstrable, even if by varied outcome. The exception here are things believed true which are not, subject to present technical limitations which may change, presently knowable. However, that category is waining as the sciences progress and we more cleaverly use what we know or can demonstrate. Accordingly, LAK&#39;s areas of faith wain as well, pushing us toward the usual definition of faith and it proper application. LAK has, however, properly rejected Zion&#39;s position even thogh his areas of faith, according to definition, are under attach by the progress of the sciences and rational understanding. Indeed, Gods used to be developed to handle problems we did not understand, e.g., rain gods, fertility gods, etc. The press is increasingly toward rejection of the ethers of religion and unprovable, unseen authority. The progress of our specie is yielding that result. Increasingly, there is ever less for a religious mouse to fasten his tooth on.</p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd2df7988342008-01-04T18:25:13Z2008-01-04T18:25:13ZLAKThen get off a U oc C board if you can't accept terms for what they are and how they...<p>Then get off a U oc C board if you can&#39;t accept terms for what they are and how they are accepted and used outside of your cult and how they&#39;ve been used by some of the world&#39;s great Chritian thinkers. Or do you want to go into a theology or philosohy class across the Midway and tell teh professor how to teach some of the most profound Christian thought ever produced and how to use terms. How you and your cultist friends misuse words to distinguish yourselves from non-believers is not authoritative. Go away and troll on boards for anti-intellectuals. This is the U of C law blog for God&#39;s sake. This is the institution of Mortimer Adler.</p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd280de88342008-01-04T14:22:41Z2008-01-25T02:40:17ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/LAK, I don't expect you to agree with me, I don't think you are capable of understanding, in this case...<p>LAK, I don&#39;t expect you to agree with me, I don&#39;t think you are capable of understanding, in this case you are wrong. I see your perspective and although I don&#39;t dismiss its legitimacy in theoretical terms, I speak of actual experience and common usage of the term. I am not discussing faith in general as spirituality can involve faith but faithfulness as a construct. Having faith in other human beings does not make one faithful. Having faith in anything does not make one faithful. Faithfulness is about faith to something or someone, a concept even, in which one is true and adherant to. The faithful, which many beleivers describe themselves as, differentiate themselves from others who may share elements of faith but are not faithful to doctrine using the term spiritual. this is not a dictionary definiton but the terms an entirely large segment of society accept as their own. In the hip hop community the term wicked has come to mean something cool, and desirable. In the dictionary that is not the word&#39;s meaning, but now a whole generation of kids has grown up using the term to describe things they like. It is a part of the english lexicon. In this same manner has the term faithful been co-opted by the adherant religious to describe themselves. I can&#39;t be wrong here I&#39;m speaking from personal experience about people I know and Love. Sorry but your refusal to acknowledge what is widely accepted has limited the viability of this conversation. </p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fd1986f88342008-01-03T20:22:30Z2008-01-03T20:22:30ZLAK"Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which...<p>&quot;Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith ? Someone had to tell or show you you something in order for you to be faithful to it.&quot;</p>
<p>And therein lies a lot of your ignorance. No starting point? One can and should base faith on one&#39;s own experience. Aspects of existence that are outside of conclusive proof are experienced by all humans all the the time. I can have faith in another person, faith in myself, faith that love and humility are the right way to go about life rather than being some kind of power and money hungry selfish person.</p>
<p>Kierkegaard&#39;s discussion of the &quot;knight of faith,&quot; and the teleological suspension of the ethical in &quot;Fear and Trembling&quot; is a famous writing about faith which proceeds from Hegelian themes, none of which have to do with Scripture. Please go read it as you are terribly terribly wrong about what &quot;faith&quot; is and isn&#39;t. It&#39;s not just believeing ghost stories becasues someone told you. You sound foolish claiming it is when such an important Christian thinker like Kierkegaard spent his life arguing otherwise. He wasn&#39;t speaking of &quot;spiritualism&quot; when he describes the &quot;knight of faith.&quot; He is speaking of Faith, and his first example 9other than Abraham being willing to kill Issac had to do with the love of a woman and personal experience and the limits of the ethical and the teleological inevitability of necessity of having to suspend the ethical and believe despite even overwhelming evidence ounter to that belief.</p>
<p>you&#39;re wrong here. Sorry.</p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fbe1c3d88332008-01-03T14:10:21Z2008-01-25T02:39:58ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/LAK I would spell it out again but I grow weary of your empty ramblings. Faithful, means having faith in...<p>LAK I would spell it out again but I grow weary of your empty ramblings. Faithful, means having faith in something. Being faithful to something, now what is there to be faithful to if you have no starting point from which to gather your faith ? Someone had to tell or show you you something in order for you to be faithful to it. Thus what you really mean is spiritual (it&#39;s a less specific label). As simple as this explanation is, it is the context that millions of faithful Muslims and Christians adhere to. you may attempt to nuance different meanings out of it, and you may succeed, but that does not change the way a majority view it. Spirituality is different, in that no adherance or faithfulness to anything is required, thus a more accurate description of what you mentioned. Arguing semantics is a pointless excercise, we disagree with each other. Maybe the religious do have the market cornered on stupid, but the proof is in the pudding and no person alive can taste that. </p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fbd3b5288332008-01-02T21:39:49Z2008-01-02T21:39:49ZLAK"I quoted them to poke holes in your argument and usage of quotes to support your cultural prejudice. It's not...<p>&quot;I quoted them to poke holes in your argument and usage of quotes to support your cultural prejudice. It&#39;s not about proving my point, its about showing the lack of thought in your point.&quot;</p>
<p>And how is it you think you accomplished this? I&#39;m confused. Nothing you quoted in any way undermines a call for the complete rejection of religious dogma.</p>
<p>Your point about faith is simplisitic and incorrect. Go read &quot;Fear and Trembling&quot; or &quot;Either/Or&quot; by Kierkegaard, or go read &quot;The Art of Loving&quot; by Eric Fromm which discusses faith in the context of living a life of love. Neither discussion requires blind belief in scripture or other sources of irrational authority. The fromm discussion explicitly distinguishes between having faith in irrational sources of authority, and having faith in one&#39;s own and humanity&#39;s capacity for love, in fact. The religious certainly do not have the market on faith cornered. Maybe stupidity.</p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fcf933788342008-01-02T13:56:46Z2008-01-25T02:39:30ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/LAK, I was right you will make and excellent politician. Talk about bobbing and weaving, you're worse than Romney on...<p>LAK, I was right you will make and excellent politician. Talk about bobbing and weaving, you&#39;re worse than Romney on this. Let me again, this time is plain basic language you can understand, explain the quotes. First point, they were not meant to support religion. I quoted them to poke holes in your argument and usage of quotes to support your cultural prejudice. It&#39;s not about proving my point, its about showing the lack of thought in your point. Lazy thinking, that is my charge to you LAK.</p>
<p>My point about the faithful and scripture still stands. Faithful means you are faithful to comething, if you believe in something you have no source from in some scriptural sense then you are not faithful, but spiritual. Like Shirley MacLaine with her crystals or transcendental meditation types who follow a guru, there is a difference between faithful and spiritual, and you seem to miss this. A phonics work book from grade 1 and a dictionary can do wonders. Now you said some of the tennets of my faith in such a negative way, while I agree with what you said in the last paragraph, God is above me, and if He wants to let people in, thats His call. I know what the bible says, and what I believe but it is foolish to limit God to only what was written. If He is creator of all, then he isn&#39;t bound by the same rules and laws we are, and as such I marvel at Him, because I will never understand Him. </p>
<p>Kimball, I have heard the point of view you shared, but more than consistancy of message (the four gospels do not mirror each other exactly and some contradict) their goal was to include what could be substantiated as from that time, again, other than revelation. If any of the Gnostic bibles came form the same time period there would be followers of it today, in substantial numbers. Evangelicals would flock to it, but alas, none but the ones in the New Testament come from the lifetime of the followers of Christ.</p>Kimball Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fbb1e7d88332008-01-01T05:17:02Z2008-01-01T05:17:02ZKimball Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererZion: I think that the criterion of a book's inclusion in the Bible was not so much at all that...<p>Zion: I think that the criterion of a book&#39;s inclusion in the Bible was not so much at all that it was written &quot;within the lifetime of the followers of Christ,&quot; but rather that it was not in contravention of the developed theology of the Council which, among other things decided that Jesus was Devine. Many early Christians were gonostics and so were many excluded books written by them. Elaine Pagels has suggested the Bibile would make much more sense if the Book of John were replaced by the Book of Thomas. However, the Book of Thomas had a fatal flaw for Catholics. It eschewed the doctrine of intermediation which the Church thought was imparative to its survival and so that book was excluded.</p>
<p>LAK: I am surprised to read you believe Einstein was a great philosopher -- not, I suggest (reason: nothing really philosophically new by him and what was there was not particularly well developed --and, further, that you now admit to a pantheism of sorts, implying a supreme something revealed in the natural world. I don&#39;t disagree, nor do I think Neitzsche would either. I am just surprised to read that you admit to it now, inasmuch as -- if I recall correctly -- you did not earlier on this blog when you eschewed any form of disem which I argued was a possibility that should be left open.</p>LAK commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fbacedc88332007-12-31T22:51:58Z2007-12-31T22:51:58ZLAKZion, You are showing your severe ignorance and lack of any ability to think with nuance. Einstein is my personal...<p>Zion,</p>
<p>You are showing your severe ignorance and lack of any ability to think with nuance. Einstein is my personal hero. He was as anti-religion a thinker as has ever existed. That he believes in some kind of panthesitic notion of &quot;god,&quot; and finds the Universe profoundly beautiful and mysterious is not to be successful in taking a &quot;jab&quot; at me. I believe the same. I was done with you, but I can&#39;t let you mislead yourself or any others by offering quotes of his and suggesting they somehow support religion or any absurd theistic conception of God. You are not. Einstein was a philosopher of the highest order, and someone who knew more about the Universe than anyone. That you should think he has no authority to comment on religion and the nature of the universe is absurd. </p>
<p>That you can&#39;t conceive of having faith without blindly believing in irrational sources of dogmatic authority makes me want to cry. Perhaps you should read some Kierkegaard. He does a wonderful job at discussing and arguing for faith without appealing to any scripture. His arguments actually fail miserably when he tries to stretch them to conclude that that faith should go toward Christianity.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, reason and ethics have their limits, and it is impossible to prove definitively that living an ethical or loving life is actually worth it. But there is a lot of evidence and strong evidence to support it, none of which is anti-intellectual or irrational or inconsistent with known truths. That is a far cry from having a &quot;faith&quot; that requires believing things that run counter to reason and science and truth and empiricism and personal experience.</p>
<p>And yes, I hate to inform you that if you are a Christian, you believe the only path to heaven is believing that Christ was the son of god (by a virgin woman, of course) and died for your sins, including that original sin born of hatred for women. Your &quot;personal&quot; savior. Implicit in this belief is that those who do not believe that Christ walked on water or was the son of God or died for our sins don&#39;t go to heaven. Where do they go again? Or are you one of these pathetic Christians who can&#39;t even recognize the icky parts of their own ghost stories? Pathetic. At least Catholics are consistent.</p>LegioNofZioN commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fba568188332007-12-31T15:26:30Z2008-01-25T02:39:12ZLegioNofZioNhttp://profile.typekey.com/NicolaiIan/First to Kim, I agree with you on Mitt, and his bobbing and weaving. I do not think him to...<p>First to Kim, I agree with you on Mitt, and his bobbing and weaving. I do not think him to be any more genuine than any other candidate and in fact it is his lack of clarity that makes me question his ability to run your country. I don&#39;t think Huckabee is any better, I think Huckabee has many faults just the same but he does seem more often to be honest. I wouldn&#39;t vote for either of them were I an American.</p>
<p>As to the Einstein quotes, I again agree with Kim. His area of expertice was physics so the idea of using him as &quot;proof&quot; or rather support for his views on religious were just reaching. As such my quotes were not to support religion but a way to break down LAK&#39;s harried reasoning by showing that quotes mean little. they were also meant as subtle jabs at LAK personally. </p>
<p>As for my &quot;compelling case for disbelief&quot;, I think Kim on this I must add that the Nicene creed and the council of Nicea that determined which books would be allowing into the modern bible, is not about ignorance at all. the council determined that the only books that could truly be included in the Bible would be the ones written within the lifetime of the followers of Christ. The only one included that did not follow this criteria closely being the revelation. This is why the Gnostic bibles are derided as they even at that time, saw them as tantamount to rewriting the story to advance their cultural beliefs. </p>
<p>and now on to LAK. The quotes were not to support God, or organized religion as that has not been my purpose here. at least Kim knows how to stay on topic in terms of Romney and Mormons. the quotes I used, LAK, were to educate you as to how little you know, and how sophmoric it is to use Einstein quotes to win an argument not at all about physics. It&#39;s like quoting the bible to prove the theory of relativity, too much of a stretch and it just doesn&#39;t fit in. As for people smiling because of carnage, where do you come up with these ? I had to show this thread to some friends at work so we could all have a laugh. People regardless of religion have celebrated enemy losses since time imemorial. that is a human condition not a religious one. use some of that acclaimed rational thought you have been touting so much in here. <br />
&quot;Thanks for the offer of having a drink but I&#39;ll pass as I have intelligent educated people of faith who don&#39;t believe in scripture to discuss these issues with.&quot; are you for real ? If one has no belief in some form of scripture, then how is one faithful ? Faithful to what ? Now to be sure I am not saying they need be literalists, but seriously do you even read what you write before you post it ? If you are an adult and not a student I fear for your common sense, as apparently you don&#39;t have much. the Einstein quotes were not to support religion but to undermine your argument. I thought that much was clear to anyone who read it. LAK I thought you were done with me, shouldn&#39;t you be gone now ?</p>
<p>Now back to Kim. I don&#39;t disagree with your contention that some religious people in the states believe that &quot;Any Means Necessary&quot; Malcolm X pre enlightnement crap. the end justify the means and all that. But in fairness, so to do most political people regardless of Republican or Democrat credentials. Look at Pelosi and her stance on torture. While its happening its ok and she avoids it like the plague, then once your government discontinues waterboarding she makes it her personal crusade. she knew and never objected when it started, so how principled is her position now ? The same kind of political double speak permeates our Canadian political parties the leftist NDP, the centrist Liberals an the centre right Conservatives (there are far right parties but they get no traction in this country). the Liberals commited us to war in Afghanistan after denying G.W. Bush aid in Iraq. then the Liberals were swept out of power after years of corruption. the new leaders, the Conservatives fresh from a 12 year banishment due to their own past corruption continued to keep our presence in Afghanistan strong despite casualties, while the Liberals used the deaths to bash to Conservatives even though it was the Liberals who commited and sent us in there in the first place. Politicians are a dangerous breed. Lying is their lifeblood and they cannot get far without it. regardless of their stated beliefs and ideals they all sell out to acheive and to keep power. </p>
<p>Something about that LAK, may make a fine politician one day.</p>Kim Corson commented on 'Romney's Founders'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c031153ef00e54fba0f5488332007-12-31T09:56:20Z2007-12-31T09:56:20ZKim Corsonhttp://sailblogs.com/member/thewandererThat Einstein was a good physicist does not make him a considered and competent philosopher or moral historian.<p>That Einstein was a good physicist does not make him a considered and competent philosopher or moral historian.</p>